Soon I will post my own thoughts on the removal of Ergun Caner as President of Liberty Seminary. I have respect for the board of directors' decision to remove their President, but there is no joy or gladness in me for their decision. My prayers will be with Ergun Caner and his family.

This post, however, is simply to point out the response of SBC Today over Liberty's announcement that the President would be removed from his duties in leading the school. What someone (author unnamed) declared on that site should cause all of us to ask the question of whether or not credibility in today's SBC world actually means anything. SBC Today declared:

"It seems that Liberty is moving in a direction to say nothing further (on Dr. Caner). In that vein we at SBC Today will not discuss this issue any further. This matter is behind us and we praise God that Dr. Caner is exonerated as he is retained at Liberty on faculty."

"The Americans are not here. They're not in Baghdad. Our army is victorious. The Americans are defeated! Praise be to Allah!

SBC Today should be renamed the Baptist Identity Information Ministry. The men at SBC Today have lost whatever credibility they had left with me, which I admit, was very little. It's interesting to compare SBC Today's response to Liberty's student newspaper headline. At least the future generation of evangelicals may have a better understanding of integrity.

94 comments:

SBC Today proved themselves, once again, to be a big joke. Of course none of them had the courage to put their name on the post. Cowards always hide.

I love Scott Gordon, I wish he would distance himself from them. He might agree theologically, BI, but his name does not belong with the rest. He is respectable, honest, and doesn't always push an agenda. I appreciate him greatly and wanted to say that... While at the same time, agreeing with you that SBC Today has no credibility, at all.

They have a convoluted understanding of "exoneration" too. But I guess anything is better than admitting they were wrong about Dr. Caner.

Actually, I am both relieved and saddened by the news about the investigation. I am relieved that Liberty has found what was obvious to the rest of the world, and has done the right thing (at least partially; I am not sure I could have voted to retain him on the faculty had I had a vote in the matter. I can only hope that they had access to information to which I am not privy). But at the same time I am saddened that Dr. Caner's last bastion of support has conceded (albeit in a left-handed sort of way) that he did indeed lie. Although he is considerably to my right in terms of theology, he failure is the failure of all evangelical Christians.

Whoops--LU isn't his last bastion of support either. The folks at Baptists Today get to claim that honor.

My real concern is how do I explain the lies, deciet, and cover up to people who are new to SBC life and are either new christians or unsaved regular vistors(seekers) who are asking a lot of questions about the lack of truth, ethics and integrity at the top levels of SBC leadership.

Scott wrote:"Well, considering that rotating Deans of colleges is fairly common, it seems at first sight that Liberty found this as an excellent opportunity to rotate faculty while appearing to 'punish' Caner."

I'm curious about his Presidency. Obviously, I assume he is no longer President. His website bio states that he is/was "President and Dean" of LBTS. At the seminary I attended, the two posts were held by two different men.

Does "President and Dean" describe a single position at Liberty, or did Caner hold two separate positions?

As Scott notes, deans rotate. Presidents (generally) do not.

I was struck that the Liberty announcement made no mention of his status as President. It seems that that would be the more pressing announcement to make: "Caner will no longer serve as President of LBTS."

Chris, some colleges use those titles interchangeably as in "President of the College of Missions" or "Dean of the College of Missions", however, some schools have separate positions.

I simply don't know about Liberty University.

I thought about going to Liberty University when I was in high school for about all of fifteen minutes, or the length of time it took me to read a couple of articles about Jerry Falwell. I even turned down a scholarship within my church.

I don't know how much Southern Baptist men appreciate their strong Christian women, but looking at Debbie and at Christa Brown; I think your daughters surely have some excellent role models who have shown honorable Christian witness, by standing up for what is right, regardless of what it costs them.

Debbie Kaufman stood up for what is right. And she was persecuted for that.But in her pursuit of the truth, she has honored Our Lord before the entire international Islamic community. That is no small contribution during these troubled times when our military sons and daughters are 'down range' in service to our country.

I find it somewhat amazing when you you say you get no "joy or gladness" out of the situation when you have repeatedly done posts on the issue. He isn't even a Southern Baptist so why does it affect us?

I'm glad your prayers are with Ergun and his family. Perhaps you should have prayed a little longer before writing the things you have written.

Anonymous: Ergun Caner is a member of a Southern Baptist Church and he is employed at a seminary that is a partner of the SBC of VA. This makes him a Southern Baptist in every sense the term is used when applied to individuals.

Anonymous. Click on my name. You'll find out all about me. Then while you're at my blog, click on my facebook. I will even accept friendship with you if you ask. You'll find out more about me including what I do for a living, who my family is, where I live, etc. Now... model your online self after me and come on out of the dark and be honest and forthright. It's the minimum we all would expect if your gonna take shots and others.

I understand that SBC bigwigs do not favor James White. If Liberty University, especially their Seminary and their apologetics office is truly lacking in their investigative efforts, if they discard truths as presented by a muslim.

This one fact will come back to haunt Ron Godwin's committee if the sole reason they disregarded any evidence presented by Mohammad Khan, is that he is a muslim.

Can an atheist speak truth? If he says "2+2=4" is the statement less true than if a Christian said the same thing? Many Christians have been saying a Muslim could not possibly be saying something that is factually, really true. But this kind of epistemological bigotry is neither biblical nor rational. Christians should be people of truth in all spheres of life. In the following video I discuss the prejudice that has been expressed by every person who has refused to consider the facts and instead has defaulted to the "A Muslim said it, therefore, it must not be true" defense. I provide two further examples of errors on the part of Ergun Caner, both of which were pointed out by...GASP!...a Muslim! I should have caught them myself, they are pretty basic, but I missed them. If they had been pointed out by a Christian, would they be more, or less, mistakes on Caner's part? Think about it.

I, too, am sorry that no comments are allowed over at SBC Today. I wanted to share some thoughts, also. But instead, I commented to David Worley a.k.a. 'Volfan' on the blog SBC Voices this:

"Hi DAVID WORLEY from SBC today

It’s me, Christiane.

You know, during this whole thing I kept imagining children’s stories about deception and things being presented in ways that were not ‘real’.Like that story by C.S. Lewis, the one where they dress up a donkey in lion-suit and they hope he doesn’t ‘bray’ and that no one looks too closely and discovers the truth?

“”But if someone who had never seen a lion looked at Puzzle in his lion-skin he just might mistake him for a lion, if he didn’t come to close, and if the light was not too good, and if Puzzle didn’t let out a bray and didn’t make any noise with his hoofs.”C.S. Lewis, The Last Battle

That part, David, about ‘the light not being too good’ just speaks to me with meaning.Here is what I think happened: some good people wanted to protect their friend from being found out, and they didn’t want the light to be shone too brightly by anyone else, or the deception would be all over, and people would know that things were not as they seemed.

But David, people can’t live like that in Christianity without the light, you know this from the tragedy in my own Church where abuse was covered up. Only bringing everything out into the light will make things better. Painful? Yes, very.But absolutely necessary.

This HAD to play out in the light, David.

It is painful: in the Body of Christ, when one member is suffering, others are NOT joyful. That’s how we know who we are.Love, L’s"

I believe this is the first step. I think the removal of Caner as dean or president was something they could do immediately. So far there has been no pubic repentance, however, I believe that will be forthcoming. Now the pressure will be on for him to resign. Watch and see. His support will erode very quickly and that is when he will resign on his own volition. That's Liberty's plan. We'll see if I'm a false prophet.

Thanks FBC Jax Watchdog. It appears they looked at some sermons clearly ... But they did indeed miss much more.

After an investigation conducted by four members of Liberty’s Board of Trustees, the university said it found that Caner has made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” concerning “dates, names and places of residence.“ The statements included his description of being raised as a Muslim in Turkey, when documents indicate he moved to the United States at the age of 4.

I am not trying to heap more coals on Ergun Caner. I actually preferred he keep his job as seminary president, provided he confesses publicly and repents.

One drawback to Mohammad Khan's videos is references as in the lack of them. It would have benefited this investigation if Mohammad Khan had documented each of his video snippets and where they came from. This would in theory enable investigators to backtrack to the source of the sermons/speeches.

But clearly Mohammad Khan did not "fabricate" the evidence presented. Maybe the Ron Godwin's committee did not look at this evidence for they might have wanted to look at the originating sermons/speeches. Of course assuming Ergun Caner and his friends have not been deleting evidences as in removing videos, sermons and speeches.

Some rotate or have "term limits" but many schools have no limit and do not rotate.

Same thing with Chairs of departments. Some schools rotate chairs; others do not. My experience has been that the rotating of department chairs is a more common practice than the rotating of Deans.

Does Caner have tenure at Liberty? Or does Liberty even do tenure? I know the younger Caner's college does not offer tenure to professors. It will be interesting to see whether Caner remains at Liberty after the upcoming 2010-2011 academic year. Or if he's been given a one-year contract with the understanding that he needs to find new employment, similar to when a professor is denied tenure and gets another year to look for a place to go instead of being left immediately unemployed.

Also, I would think the next Dean of Liberty Seminary would not be excited about the prospect of having Caner on the seminary's faculty. That might make for an awkward, possibly unpleasant situation for the new guy.

EC is demoted because of his lies. He is no longer dean of seminary. This is LU's sacrifice offering to appease bloggers and the media. It is a good diplomatic politics of shutting mouths and pens of media and bloggers. They score big PR victory. This is not biblical strategy, this is Sun Tzu war strategy: offer small minuscule sacrifice to win big war.

LU's biggest score is this: EC will continue to do what he has always been doing, namely standing before public and churches to continue teaching, preaching, etc. with LU's blessings. So what he is relieved from is MERELY his administrative post but he has not lost an inch of all his MAIN thing--stand before the public and pontificating.

It is like: telling EC, you can no longer be a senior pastor, but you can continue to preach and teach as usual. Smart. Very smart indeed. Who is the mastermind of this move? Who is the Sun Tzu strategy tactician of LU?

This is LU's biggest victory without wagging any war at all. All remains the same. In essence it is saying "we fool all of you guys--your think you got something but in essence you got nothing at all. Just hot air."

For Baptists in general: it is OK to sin publicly against God in continued lying, greed, pride, etc., as long as you don't sin agains Baptists' popes (e.g., Falwell, Paige Patterson, Criswell, etc). Grievous sins against God such as pride and thinking and planning evil, etc. are forgiven and tolerated, but sin against Baptists' popes are NOT forgiven. PROOF: Joel Gregory sinned against W.A. Criswell and FOREVER BANNED from white Baptist seminaries and fundamentalist churches. In Baptist churches and culture there is only ONE sin, that is adultery. All other mental attitude sins are allowed.

In this context: EC does not need to repent or confess any sin, he will continue to preach and teach AS USUAL. LU sacrificed his administrative honor by striking his name off of paper, but in REALITY all remains the same. At the core: EC does not sin by lying for a decade in public--he can continue to teach and preach to the same audience.

EC is a preacher and teacher who happepped to be dean because of his preaching and teaching. And now he is no longer dean but he is doing the same things in the same context. It is status quo. Unless his preaching and teaching in the same context is eliminated then everything stays the same. How if Gen. McChrystal relieved of his post but still in Afghanistan directing the army? Is it not a joke!

I guess it is probable that the committee looking into this demonstrated grace.

grace - giving us what we don't deserve.

I know I have seen that thought around here somewhere. Maybe it was just being used as a header to gather the troops to demonstrate what grace in not.

I don't think anyone here who wants EC to apologize to them or to the world wants this because of grace. I could be wrong but the path to get his head on a platter has been less than a demonstration of grace.

If EC owes anyone here an apology, those same people who have hunted, while drooling for his life. need to apologize quicker.

This is not a defense of EC but a rebuke of the get EC at any cost and with any language we desire attitude permeating this cyber air.

Jon Estes: Why do you constantly want to make it about the messengers. Caner did this to himself when he lied and then decided to lie some more and then to cover those lies. Explain that if you don't mind.He didn't do this for the sake of the Gospel. He did it for the sake of himself. Period.

Jon Estes; Well I wiggled through 38 comments you being no.38. I get the feeling that the illustrious, fair, forgiving,ever gracious preacher from Enid would have indeed rather have forgiven EC if his head was delivered on a platter.Jim Sadler

Yeah, Jon Estes, don't you get it yet? The messengers are not accountable for any of their actions. They're on a mission from God dagnabit! How dare LU practice mercy and grace allowing Caner a year to find another job. Only his head on a platter will do for this blood thirsty mob.

Do you believe that no matter how wrong EC is, was or ever will be excuses some of the ungracious language thrown at him? Do you really think the messengers who have verbally assaulted EC are guiltless?

My bible tells me to go to those who have been an offense, not to others. Therefore I have come and spoken in the forum to those who have been offensive where they have been offensive.

Yes, my words are to the messengers. They are the ones here. If I am led to talk to EC, I will. I will not, though, talk to you against another.

Jim Sadler,

If Wade were the only voice here I guess we could say I was directing my words to him. My words were intentionally pointed at those who condemn EC and who show no desire to go to EC and love him in Christ.

"Yeah, Jon Estes, don't you get it yet? The messengers are not accountable for any of their actions. They're on a mission from God dagnabit! How dare LU practice mercy and grace allowing Caner a year to find another job. Only his head on a platter will do for this blood thirsty mob."

If this didn't show heavy signs of sarcasm (and I could be wrong on this), I'd agree with your thoughts of honesty. Oh well...

"When reminded of your sin by some fellows a few months ago, did you repent?"

I don't think Wade thought he had sinned. An accusation does make it a sin unless you are a blogger and bloggerites of the blog who live to expose others.

Good question though. As a follow up...

Wade, is there any reason the anonymous accuser of you had reason to say you had a gambling problem? I'm not saying you do and I don't think you do but is there anything in your life which would give cause for someone to make such an accusation?

I wonder if all the Caner supporters as well as those who are criticizing the Debbie Kaufman's and FBC Jax WD's of the world are not guilty of the same "embellishing" even a smaller scale.

I cannot believe all this rushing to defend Caner. If he is a man of God, would he have embellished for 9 years his testimony and resume? Some say this is just a little mistake and that with a little apology Caner should return to work at full force with a slap on the wrist, which is what being removed as Dean actually is.

Well, for those who think this is a little white lie, are you guilty of embellishing for the sake of those who might make "professions of faith." It is not the glory of the testimony but the glory of God in the gospel that leads people to salvation. Maybe you think that the gospel is weak and that the gospel needs help to make its message a little more palatable.

This is a major issue. It is a breach of trust from one who is a leader of a major theological institution.

This is just part of my thought on your question to me. I do not want Ergun to lose everything. In fact I would like to see him healed of any wounds that have been inflicted and come out better and stronger for it. I wish to give mercy. I long to do that. But Ergun has not repented of lying. Misstatements is lying. It is not misstatements. I am fine with the action Liberty took. I would just like Ergun to be a professor who is so in love with Christ that he is willing to say publicly, I sinned. Forgive me.

I have a problem with an unrepentant Ergun teaching a class on anything in a Christian University. In secular universities and papers, he would not have a job. I wish him no further thing than a public repentance. That is what someone who has truly been touched by God would wish to do under the circumstances of this being done so publicly. He owes the military, those at churches he has spoken to a public apology. That is my opinion.

I might add, if he has repented to Liberty, I am also fine with that. The statement from Liberty has no wording in it that says Ergun was in fact lying, and those who defended him are not saying he was exonerated. Fortunately most know that just isn't true and it's the ones who wrote this headline that I too am spiritually concerned about. It's like being in an episode of "Twilight Zone" from my end.

No, Jon, there is not. A few years ago I learned how to play penny poker games with some men from our church--some really great guys. I do not believe it is a sin for them to get together and fellowship while playing poker, but I imagine that some who know of my view on this issue might take offense. My church members, however, will tell you I haven't played with them in three years. In fact, I suggested that we play for Bibles and devotional commentaries and that took the fun out of it for a few.

Compulsive gambling is a huge issue in Oklahoma. We have several groups of CR devoted to the issue, and many, many families destroyed by it. That's one of the reasons it would be hard for me to take a "tithe" from winnings in Vegas.

I'm not saying you are wrong in doing so, just that to me it seems like "blood money" from other people.

But I will covenant with you that when we get to heaven and bow upon thankful knees before Christ to agree with you that only by grace are we in His glorious presence and that His grace is certainly sufficient for sinners so great as the two of us.

"My bible tells me to go to those who have been an offense, not to others. Therefore I have come and spoken in the forum to those who have been offensive where they have been offensive."

It also tells you to do it privately and if they do not repent then take witnesses. Then if they don't repent to take it to the church. So, you willing to take it to that level? And which church are you planning on taking it to?

Against my wife's desires I am posting this comment and then I am finished with this issue. Trash me all you like as you reveal your true bias in this entire issue. First, if Dr. Caner were not exonerated then he would have been released and not given another contract to teach. Second, if you were not behind this from the beginning you would not have taken the posture you did when the report was released.

I only have one thing to say to you; I am praying for you. Luke 6:28 (NASB77)bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.

Matt,

You come over here for your audience to get your "sucker punches" in. However, allow me to help you understand something. If you will notice the tag on our post is "Announcements". Announcements come from the SBC Today team as a whole. However, I do not mind telling you, I was the person who posted it. If you have problems with anything you have problems with me. However, why do you not become a SBC Pastor before you begin trying to voice SBC concerns. Trying to divide our group the way you have in this comment stream is not good. However, now that you know it was me, take your best shot. Luke 6:26 (ASV) Woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you! for in the same manner did their fathers to the false prophets.

I like how Wade sees things. I read the comments section and the hatred, the righteous attitude of many taking to quarrel with Wade is not attractive. If you have such a visceral dislike of the site, then do not visit it.

"It also tells you to do it privately and if they do not repent then take witnesses. Then if they don't repent to take it to the church. So, you willing to take it to that level? And which church are you planning on taking it to?"

Anon, I'll be delighted to talk to you in private but I have no idea who you are. It is good to know you know scripture enough to share about the private issue. So, when are you or when did you go to EC, in private?

It is somewhat spineless to tell someone to go to someone private when you refuse to reveal yourself.

Had EC's supporters simply followed the example that he and LU gave them (say nothing, post nothing), I expect this whole thing would have died under its own weight. There is nothing like a vicious statement of support from an unthinking person who has ignored the data to promote a determined search for examples of error—and many, many comments in response. Long threads always encourage someone.

"Anon, I'll be delighted to talk to you in private but I have no idea who you are. It is good to know you know scripture enough to share about the private issue. So, when are you or when did you go to EC, in private?"

It is not a private matter. But a very public one thanks to Caner who was a very public person speaking his lies to thousands over 9 years. It is silly to treat this as a private matter. But I do give you guys credit for trying very hard on that one.

Your arrogance shines through...for a pastor.

What does it matter who I am?

So, what church are you going to bring Debbie before for her unrepentant sin as a messenger about Caner?

So EC was a public figure and that justifies a public outcry? Can this behavior of choice be supported scripturally?

Sat Jun 26, 04:30:00 PM 2010

Perhaps Paul publicly rebuking Peter for his behavior? How about the fact he put it in a letter to another group to read about it? And we are reading about it now. Paul did not seem to think Peter being an Apostle counted for much in this case. Perhaps we give celebrity pastors too much of a pass by trying to hide their sins or rebuke them only in private for what they do publicly.

What if Paul had not done this and Peter continued in this? What would have happened? More like him?

Would John be in sin for writing about poor Diotrephes? We do not get to hear his side of the story. And for some reason, it was published for the world to read about.

That should be "Liberty Student News," not "the Liberty student newspaper." LSN is an independent organization; I believe the student newspaper at Liberty is called The Liberty Champion, and is on hiatus until just before classes resume in the Fall.

Jon L. Estes--The general impression I get from your comments is that you would prefer that the whole EC problem have been taken care of privately and quietly--and I too would prefer that it had never come to my attention. But the problem with that is that nothing would EVER have happened. You find people who pointed out EC's problems back in 2006 (and probably before). Nothing happened anywhere. EC continued to make the same statements even after several "hints" that some had noticed that they were not factual. Back in February, he said this was "of no interest to me."

LU flatly said that the only reason they got involved was because newspapers were asking questions. So it seems reasonable that they were never going to do anything--and were reluctant to do anything even after the data were made available to anyone with Internet access. Others who knew from personal history were either quiet or ineffective at producing change.

Given the circumstances and personalities involved, can you suggest how the problem would have been cleaned up, other than the way it was?

How about the fact he put it in a letter to another group to read about it?

Paul was defending the gospel (which Peter had twisted). Has EC twisted the gospel?

And we are reading about it now. Paul did not seem to think Peter being an Apostle counted for much in this case.

Paul did what he did out of love for Peter but primarily out of love for Christ. He was also writing these words under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Using them to justify an attack on a persons behavior which which is not teaching a false gospel does not fit. Nice try.

What I wish for is that Christians would treat other Christians in a more civil matter. Disagree with others if you wish but share with them your disagreement.

I stated earlier (within the past few days) in this thread or another one on this blog I am not defending EC. I am addressing the attitude and verbal assaults on EC without one desire to speak to him.

Maybe you don't see it but there is an air of glee because EC, the celebrity to some, the liar to some, the evil man to others has been discovered. He needs to be discarded, stomped on, spit at and let the world know. We Christians will not stand for wrong behavior and we will talk about it among each other, pat each other on their cyber backs. We will even tell the world how wrong LU is for not handling it our way. Who do we think we are?

There is enough anger going around in this world without a bunch of Christians setting up camp in a cyber home to show the world their self righteous anger.

Blogs don't hurt anyone, they don't do a thing but some bloggers around these neck of the woods are mean spirited and blood thirsty. They exist to know the latest failure and be able to give their opinion.

They even use Paul did it to Peter. If they can't see how it does not fit the context of what is going on in these blogs, they are lacking discernment.

"Given the circumstances and personalities involved, can you suggest how the problem would have been cleaned up, other than the way it was?"

Let me suggest a few things you can find in a very good book.

1 - Prayer for2 - Going out of your way to talk personally to the one who has offended, as the Lord leads3 - Make it about Jesus

One practical suggestion:

1 -Don't let these blogs be a locker room half time cheering on the team to victory to stomp out evil place.

Jon, Now that I think about it...you are the same Jon that went on BBC and told those bloggers to "touch not thine anointed' when it came to Gaines.

Your real motivation seems to be protecting pastors no matter what they do and using twisted scripture to do so.

Yes, every time Caner used scripture in relation to his lies, he twisted it. Made a mockery of it. But mostly, he entertained and told stories about HIMSELF.

Peter was being legalistic in only eating with the Jews. You are being legalistic by inferring that pastors are to be coddled and protected in their sin (continual lies for 9 years!) when they are public teachers. When they are paid to speak and do it all over the country.

The lay folks are not allowed to make their lies public? That is mean according to you. That is the worse sin according to you.

1 -Don't let these blogs be a locker room half time cheering on the team to victory to stomp out evil place.

Sun Jun 27, 07:17:00 AM 2010

In other words, the anointed pastors get to decide what is locker room talk and what isn't. If you notice that is exactly what is happening in the Caner scandal. Many pastors think they are the ones that can define sin. Caner sin, not so bad. The messengers about Caner, horrible sinners!

Jon,Public sins merit public rebukes. Consider what Tom Chantry has said on this issue: "05.17.2010 Tom Chantry Why the Ergun Caner Scandal Matters: a Plea to Pastors This is a local church matter, and discipline per se can only take place there.At the same time, Ergun Caner is a very public teacher/preacher. He is an often-published author. Consequently his actions demand a response from the church universal in the public realm, both for the reputation of the gospel and for the glory of Christ.I believe this distinction, which is so often ignored by those who would defend public teachers from criticism, is not only legitimate, but can be demonstrated from Scripture. Compare I Timothy 1:18-20 with I Corinthians 5:1-5 You will note that the sin in I Corinthians 5 is of a particularly horrible type, yet Paul does not publish the sinner's name. It was a matter for the church at Corinth, not anywhere else. Why does he not extend the same gracious courtesy to Hymenaeus and Alexander? Was it because their sin was worse? That is hard to imagine. It was rather because they were public teachers, and as such their sin posed a threat to all the churches, not just that in Crete.It has long been acknowledged in Protestantism that preachers and teachers have an obligation to shine the light of truth on false teaching and on public sin when it is committed by those who would be teachers of the church. This is one of the essential differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. We can well understand why James said that not many should become teachers, for we (the teachers) will be judged with greater strictness."-----------Furthermore "Matthew 23:31, 35 “So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. . . so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.” 2 Timothy 2:17-18 “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.”2 Timothy 4:14 “Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.”3 John:9-10 “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.”“Let those who complain about naming false teachers state how Jesus and the apostles were wrong to confront those in error, personally and publicly, in their time. If they cannot do so, let them show that what we name as false teaching is, in fact, the truth. If they cannot do either, then let their mouths be stopped.And let us all live under the authority of the Word of God, rather than embrace a sentimental, unbiblical approach for dealing with error in the church of Jesus Christ” (James McDonald Straight Up 04.02.2009)--------Christians need to be alerted and warned of teachers who teach a false gospel, and who teach a true gospel falsely: "Galatians 2:11-12 “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in the presence of all, "If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”--------Wade Burleson personally called Caner to repentance. James White personally called Caner to repentance. "Razors Kiss" personally called Caner to repentance. He was called to repentance. He refused to acknowledge his sins in any meaningful way, and still has not done so.

Tim Rogers,You told Wade " if Dr. Caner were not exonerated then he would have been released and not given another contract to teach."

Here is a definition of exonerated:

exoneration - the condition of being relieved from blame or obligation exoneration - vindication: the act of vindicating or defending against criticism or censure etc.; "friends provided a vindication of his position"wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Do you believe that when Liberty board removed Caner as President they did so because he was without sin? Or do you believe Caner sinned when he "made “factual statements that are self-contradictory” concerning “dates, names and places of residence.“

Yes he sinned when he did this or no he did not sin when he did this, and is blameless?

Liberty Student News says, "The statements included his description of being raised as a Muslim in Turkey, when documents indicate he moved to the United States at the age of 4."

Do you believe that in every case, when anyone gets to keep their job that means they are exonerated? Such as Bill Clinton. Or the Apostle Peter perhaps, when he was publicly rebuked by Paul?

Jon, please ignore those who broke into our conversation. :) Even though they made what seem to me to be effective points.

I don't think that you addressed my question, which was, "How was this problem to be resolved?"

After the months that it took doing it this way (and the LU and EC statements that they were not interested in the blog comments or in doing anything), I don't think it would have happened. EC and LU were quite willing for things to continue as they were--even after it became obvious that they could not continue with any honesty. They seemed to think that taking the more obvious "embellishments" out of the biography would be enough.

I thought that the people who were pointing out EC's contradictions almost always did it courteously--but with the conviction that they had truth on their side. If the same could be said of EC's defenders, this would be a more positive experience for all--and the threads would have been much shorter.

"if Dr. Caner were not exonerated then he would have been released and not given another contract to teach."

This is simply spin and presupposes that the leadership at Liberty,by virtue of their titles, are taking a purely spiritual view of a pastor/teacher lying over a span of 9 years to thousands. They cannot even bring themselves to call it lying. Which it was.

However, they are much more adept at PR spin than Elmer Towns.

We have the recent testimony of a Liberty student relating that Caner spent 7 minutes of class time declaring his innocence to young impressionable minds.

I don't know if it is permitted to digress into an area opened up in this combox?

I will be bold and digress though and see?

The sin of the man in 1 Corinthians and the sins of Hymenaeus and Alexander were raised in some of the discussions above.

I wanted to note God's sense of humor, even with such sorrows and errors of men.

Consider the depth of wisdom God gave to Paul? He was putting on Satan and directing the Church, as a disciplinary action, it appears from the verses, what Satan had to do for the Church as directed by Paul, regards to both of these incidents recorded in the Bible here:

1Co 5:2 And you are arrogant! Ought you not rather to mourn? Let him who has done this be removed from among you. 1Co 5:3 For though absent in body, I am present in spirit; and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment on the one who did such a thing. 1Co 5:4 When you are assembled in the name of the Lord Jesus and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, 1Co 5:5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord.

and

1Ti 1:18 This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare, 1Ti 1:19 holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting this, some have made shipwreck of their faith, 1Ti 1:20 among whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan that they may learn not to blaspheme.

What trouble the Apostle and the Church brought upon Satan, in that with the man, Satan was forced to "destroy the man's flesh that "his spirit might be saved"!

Huh?

And, what double trouble it must have been for the "chief blasphemer of God among men, Satan", to have to teach those two "not to blaspheme God! :))

Might the Godly men and women commenting hereon come together in the Spirit and Prayer of agreement and turn the Caner brothers over to Satan so that Satan has to teach them not to lie as he had to go and destroy the man's flesh so that his spirit might be saved and teach those two blasphemers not to blaspheme?

Please know that 1 Cor. 5 cannot be taken into consideration without reading also these words of St. Paul to the same Corinthians in 2 Cor.2:

"5 2 If anyone has caused pain, he has caused it not to me, but in some measure (not to exaggerate) to all of you.6 This punishment by the majority is enough for such a person,7 so that on the contrary you should forgive and encourage him instead, or else the person may be overwhelmed by excessive pain.8 Therefore, I urge you to reaffirm your love for him.9 For this is why I wrote, to know your proven character, whether you were obedient in everything.10 Whomever you forgive anything, so do I. For indeed what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for you in the presence of Christ,11 so that we might not be taken advantage of by Satan, for we are not unaware of his purposes."

The truth is, that St. Paul's writings were NOT 'divided' up into verses by him. So to be able to learn from St. Paul's writings, we must look at the tone of ALL of them that are related, not just isolate one section without seeing how it is affected by other salient sections.

If 1 Cor. 5 is read and applied without any recourse to 2 Cor. 2:5-11;then we are not following the intent of St. Paul as inspired by the Holy Spirit.